Search

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to posit a possible reason why non-Indigenous educators are seen to be 'cautious' in their pedagogic engagement with First Nations perspectives in curriculum, why interventions and programmess around reconciliation and truth-telling have limited traction in affecting change in school culture, and why the Australian education system is constructed to be, and remains, largely hostile to First Nations Peoples and perspectives. Despite several decades of studies exploring these phenomena and concerted efforts to 'fix the problem', there has been a systemic failure to shift discourses and practice beyond the completely absent, tokenistic, or superficial inclusion of First Nations narratives in Australian education. We argue that power-knowledge relations of settler-colonial discourses are fundamentally at play and that by examining how disciplinarity and settler-colonial frameworks of knowledge control operate in education, we conceptualize a possible reason to the pedagogical challenges faced in the decision-making and integration of First Nations narratives in curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Curriculum theorists have acknowledged the relevance of ‘hermeneutics’, or theory of interpretation and understanding, to curriculum studies. In the European ‘Didaktik’ tradition hermeneutics has also been applied to the curriculum work of educators, but such an extension is rarer in the Anglo-American tradition. Educators in the latter tradition are expected to implement rather than actively interpret standardised curriculum. However, working with standardised curriculum is a process rich with hermeneutic significance. In this paper educator work with one form of standardized curriculum, so-called ‘competency-based’ education, is investigated. The touchstone of this investigation is a small study of educator curriculum interpretation practices in the Australian vocational education system, a system that allows educators very little scope to exercise professional autonomy with respect to the content of learning. Wilhelm Dilthey’s seminal hermeneutic theory is used to analyse the interpretative work of these educators. The paper foregrounds the complexity of this hermeneutic practice and challenges the assumption that the interpretation of standardised curriculum is a straightforward process. The argument is made that Australia’s vocational education system underestimates the hermeneutic dimension of educator work and further complicates the process by promulgating a textual form that is hermeneutically ambiguous. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Australia has recently moved from having curricula developed within individual states to national curricula, including in English. This move in Australia has coincided with debate over Michael Young's call for 'bringing knowledge back in'. English has historically been epistemologically unstable with an ever-contestable knowledge base, and this is especially true of literary knowledge. The Australian Curriculum: English was nevertheless framed in early consultation papers as focused primarily on knowledge—a focus reflected in the main organizing elements moving from the 'traditional' language mode organizers 'reading', 'writing',' listening', 'speaking', etc., to the organizers 'Language', 'Literature' and 'Literacy'. Here we investigate the specific uses of the words 'knowledge' and related terms such as 'know' and 'knowing' as one kind of analysis of how knowledge plays out in the Curriculum. We show that as the Curriculum itself developed, the constituent elements of the phrase 'knowledge, understanding and skills' came to align specifically to the constituent elements of the organizers 'Language', 'Literature' and 'Literacy', to the point where the term 'knowledge' came to be attached almost exclusively to 'Language', and then mainly in the Years Foundation—Year 6. This 'Language knowledge' then became continually positioned as underlying the 'skills' of 'Literacy', so that Literature is seen to be almost arbitrary to the fundamental imperatives of the Curriculum—a means through which the cultural intentions of the Curriculum might be serviced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reflects on how relevance has been invoked as a curricular principle, both by students and teachers, in curriculum documents and in curriculum theory, to explore its variously conceived parameters and conditions. By posing the questions ‘relevant to whom?’, ‘relevant to what?’, ‘relevant how?’ and ‘relevant when?’ this paper exposes relevance as both a curricular virtue and a curricular constraint. It draws on an empirical project undertaken in the prevocational curriculum offered in Australia’s recently extended compulsory schooling for students in non-academic pathways. Data vignettes offer windows into two settings to exemplify the different ways relevance can be interpreted, stretched or contested. Using Bernstein’s distinction between vertical and horizontal discourses and knowledge structures, the analysis identifies what is gained and what is lost when relevance, variously defined, serves as a principle for curricular selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Operating within a neoliberal education reform context, performativity and teaching in schools has been a focus of study for a number of years. However, less is known about the effects of performativity on teaching and curriculum in the early childhood (preschool) context. Making a case for the intensification of performativity in Australian early childhood education, this paper reports on findings from a doctoral study and draws on research literature from the past fourteen years to illustrate how performative measures have increasingly affected teaching and curriculum. The way that performativity has intensified is discussed in three chronological phases, performativity emerging, consolidating and normalised. Teacher interview transcripts and curricular related policies were analysed using critical discourse analysis and Ranson’s typology of accountability regimes. Findings reveal that early childhood teachers have different ways of responding to performativity, with the teacher featured in this paper displaying three types of performative accountability: anxiety, confidence, and disregard. An implication arising from this paper’s findings illustrates how the effects of performativity on teaching and curriculum can be complex, contradictory and at times, unintended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]